Re: ECF Nos. 49 & 50
LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.
The court previously granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed this case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Fourteen days later, Mr. Thomas filed two new motions: (1) "Motion for Summary Judgment Oral Hearing Date," and (2) "Motion for Response to Judicial Defendants Response."
First, Mr. Thomas asks for a hearing on the already-decided motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.
Second, liberally construed, Mr. Thomas appears to request reconsideration of the court's order dismissing his case. For example, the court decided that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Thomas's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
A district court can "reconsider" final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) (governing motions to alter or amend judgments) and 60(b) (governing motions for relief from a final judgment). See Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 466-67 (9th Cir. 1989). Reconsideration is appropriate when (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the underlying decision was in clear error or manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). "There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration." Id.
Under this District's Civil Local Rules, a party seeking reconsideration must first request permission from the court before filing a motion for reconsideration. Civil L.R. 7-9. In seeking permission, the party must show that (1) at the time of the motion, a material difference in fact or law exists that was not previously presented to the court, (2) there has been an emergence of new material facts or a change in law since the court issued the order, or (3) there was a "manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments" that were presented. Id. 7-9(b). "No motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered." Id. 7-9(c).
Here, Mr. Thomas has not satisfied this standard. He has not shown a material difference in law or fact that was not previously presented to the court, an emergence of new facts or a change in the law since the court's order, or that the court's dismissal was in clear error, manifestly unjust, or unresponsive to dispositive legal arguments. He instead simply argues that the state court lacked jurisdiction and that he can challenge that deficiency at any time. But, even if the state court lacked jurisdiction, he cannot appeal those decisions to this federal district court — as explained in the court's order dismissing the case, Rooker-Feldman bars such "appeals."
The court denies Mr. Thomas's motions filed at ECF Nos. 49 and 50.